Reading Thoughts 1. Question- I wonder why General Washington allowed General Lee to take up the assault on the British at Monmouth Court House. General Lee never thought that the plan would work and he had already refused an offer to lead the attack. I believe that General Washington should never have sent General Lee to lead the attack.
2. Importance- In this section I saw the importance of the generals’ wives visiting Valley Forge. When the women were in camp it lifted the attitudes of the generals. In turn, the generals’ positive attitudes boosted the morale of the men in camp.
Read Like a Historian 1. Turning Points - When General Von Steuben arrived at Valley Forge he played a huge role in turning a group of rebels into an army. He drilled the top officers in each group and then sent them back to teach the rest. These drills not only made the army look more professional but also helped the morale of the troops and the intimidation factor when they would line up against the British.
2.Cause and Effect- when General Lee overruled Colonel Lafayette’s lead in the attack on the British, he pulled all of the troops before they even got into a large battle. This turned out to be advantageous because when the retreating troops met with General Washington they were in a great place to set up a strong defense and destroy the British.
Reading Thoughts Big Ideas/Generalizations – One of the main issues of the Continental Army was their ability to attract recruits and keep their veterans. As the war went on, it became apparent that people are much more willing to protect their homes than foreign places. It is a truth that Washington often considered. After the British army invaded a new area, Washington would look for new recruits before beginning campaigns to stop the British advances. Every time, new recruits would come forward when they realized their very own homes would be in danger if the Continentals were not successful. Also, throughout the war, it was obvious that no victories also meant very little new recruit or supplies. It is not a little known fact that people tend not to support something that will probably not be victorious, especially when a defeat could lead to death.
Importance – Through all of the ups and downs of the Continental Army and the change in British command, the leadership of George Washington was always constant. The soldiers’ unquestioned loyalty to their commander in chief was a wonder to incoming commanders like General von Steuben. Ever since the attack on Trenton, George Washington’s men had the enthusiasm known to von Steuben as being “The intangible ingredient of every great army, the love of the troops for the leader they served.” Congress may not have known its importance, but von Steuben recognized it as the one piece of hope he would use to in training the men. This very relationship drove the army through all the horrible winters and bloody campaigns to a much deserved victory.
Reading Like a Historian Through Their Eyes – Everyone prior to and during the American Revolution thought of Britain as an unconquerable enemy whose force surpassed all others. This worldwide view brought fear to the French and kept them out of a formal alliance for much of the war. Also, the British used their power and influence to gain valuable soldiers like the Hessians. The former British dominance also led the British commanders, especially Howe, to be extremely arrogant. Nobody on earth actually believed the American’s could defeat their enemy until their attack at Trenton. After Trenton, the French realized the surprising ability of the Americans.
Differing Perspectives – Throughout the war, Congress acted as an annoyance to Washington. They acted as if they knew what was best for the army and the conditions they were in when, in reality, they had no idea what war was even like. Washington even received an anonymous letter that he knew to be from his friend, Dr Rush, questioning his ability to command the army. Many of his generals were angry and frustrated at Congress, but Washington knew that even if he did not agree, he could do nothing about it. Personally, I don’t see how Washington could possibly have kept his anger under control. After all, no one could fully comprehend the conditions of the men at Valley Forge without actually seeing it for themselves.
Rachel Maguire Once again, forgot to comment on Jake’s post.
I also have no idea what Washington was doing sending General Lee to command the attack, especially when he believed so much in LaFayette. I’m not exactly sure if he had actually sent Lee to command or if Lee had just assumed that he could, because LaFayette definitely had not heard anything until Lee was there. Also, it seemed to me that Lee felt that he did not require Washington’s permission to do anything seeing as he didn’t actually follow through with the mission.
When this point came up in the book I was extremely surprised. I had no idea that throughout the war, women would be so important and in such an unusual way.
Von Steuben definitely made a huge difference to not only the organization of battle, but I think it also made the men more confident going into battle. Plus, his way of commanding is quite interesting.
After General Lee pulled the troops out I was angry, so I had never actually realized how helpful the move had ended up being. This was just a completely different way of looking at it.
Evaluation: I thought how Lafayette and Von Steuben did in the American Army was very interesting. Neither of them had much decoration or very important experience, and yet both of them were the best and most useful out of all the officers sent by the French. From what I gathered from the book many officers were sent that demanded power, and many interviewed for that same reason. They all had “decoration”, but only the lower Captain Von Steuben and Lafayette came close to Washington.
Question: Why did Congress always believe one man’s story when it came to giving credit to a victory? They always elevated the wrong people and questioned the correct people’s capabilities. This question refers to the Generals Lee and Gates.
Thinking like a Historian:
Turning Points: Besides the turning point as the result of the Battle of Trenton there is the turning point of the training of General Von Steuben. Before his work the soldiers had the tenacity of the British, but they lacked the training and experience of them. Von Steuben leveled that playing field with the training during the spring after Valley Forge.
Change and Continuity: During the winter of 1777-1778 Washington changed how he played the game. Instead of attacking during the winter like the previous year he kept his army in place. However, what remained the same was the slow start of the campaign which caused the turning point in competition as mentioned above. Also another thing that didn’t change during the winter was the severe conditions that made many men ill or caused them to die, but that changed as a result of that Greene was appointed quartermaster which kept the army in relative good supply for the rest of the war.
Comment: I definitely agree with Rachel on the comment about Washington’s kept anger and Congress’ annoying tendencies; though I feel that not all of the supply issues were due to Congress. A lot of the supply issues that occurred were because of poor work that was done in the quartermaster office that was fixed with Greene’s assignment to the post.
I agree one hundred percent. Why would an average person want to go protect a land that is far away from his own home when it would mean almost certain death.
When workers enjoy who they are working for they are more likley to perform better. This also works in reverse, such as whenever General Lee would lead his troops into battle. The troops were not enthusiastic because General Lee would retreat before the battle ever started.
I agree that after Battle of Trenton the French started to look at the Americans as a capable army and were more willing to start sending their troops over to aid the Americans.
I thought that Congress was rather annoying as well in knowing what was best for the army and the conditions. One would think that if General Washington asked for something, the Congress would give it to him. No one knew what was needed more than than General Washington and his army.
Importance- I feel that one of the most important things in the book, which Jeff Shaara wants to get across to the reader, is how strong of a leader George Washington was. Shaara consistently points out the struggles of the Continental Army, such as the lack of supplies and the lack of trained and professional shooters, not the make them look week, but in fact to make them, and more importantly, General Washington, look stronger. Without his guidance and clear understanding of the war and what his military's limits are, the Continental Army would have clearly fell to the more experienced British Army. I feel Shaara did this to attract the reader and make him or her feel the same way some union soldiers would feel about the war at that time, a hopeless effort.
Evaluation- Reading past comments in this thread and some of my past thoughts on why general Lee reluctantly agreed to lead the assault on Monmouth, I really started to think about what the mindset would have been at that time. After some additional research to the summer of 1778 and the events leading up to it, I concluded that one of the main causes to this attack was the weather. As stated in the book, around the time of the battle, it was hot. I learned that around the date of the battle, temperatures were consistently over 100 degrees. With hot weather, people get agitated. This agitation from the extreme weather could have been one of the things that set Generals Lee and Washington off, and what led them to believe that the attack was a good idea. Also, if you look at the date of the battle (June 28th, 1778)some people may notice that this is almost exactly 6 months after Valley Forge. This also may have made Washington feel like he needed "revenge". With this new insight into the battle, I concluded that the cause for the attack may have been less about the actual war, but more internal reasons and from just being angry.
Using the Past- Using the controvertial attack on Monmouth, I think the current day military can learn one important lesson. This lesson is, just because times are tough, an attack with large numbers will not always help. In the battle of Monmouth, Lee agreed to fight with the promise of more soldiers than he was previously given. With this increase of firepower and because of the agitation he was facing at the time from the heat, he decided to attack. While this battle could be looked at as a success, it did have its share of drawbacks (examples being further heat exhaustion and loss of men). It seems the me, modern day battle tactics are based of numbers, rather than external factors. A large example being the Vietnam war. With soldiers going into very unfamiliar terrain, many men were lost due to the actual jungle. If we would have learned our lesson from the Battle of Monmouth, we would have been more cautious of external factors and therefore, would have lost a lot less men. I feel the modern day military needs to take more factors into account effect, such as weather, the locals feelings towards the army being there and what the costs would be instead of focusing on the main goal like what Generals Lee and Washington mistakenly did in Monmouth.
Turning Points- An obvious turning point was the Battle of Trenton. With the success of the Rebel Army in question but a week before the attack, this victory shot good moral through the army like blood in a vein. The new moral gave the army hope and gave the soldiers confidence in themselves and gave them a reason to fight.
Comment: To answer Alexis's question about congress believing one man's story, I think it was just am issue of how hard it was to get word around at the time. At the time, a lot of information got around by mouth and then got written down as heard. Congress probably recognized the work of all the lesser known commanders, but the general public didn't. If someone was telling you the story of a battle and you were a union soldier, and you heard the names of General Washington and General von Steuben, the average soldier would probably only remember Washington. Then he would write in his Journal on how Washington (with the help of unnamed others) did something important. The soldier would then tell the story to another, only using Washington's name. So in conclusion, I feel it is the public that didn't give credit where credit was earned, not the government.
Predictions- Its clear that at the beginning of the book the Rebels are being badly beaten by the British Army, however, once the book progressed and Washington was able to come out with a key win at Trent against the Hessian, I believe that Washington will continue to win battles and eventually crush the British.
Importance- The Rebels have a better reason to fight than the British do, and I think that will play to their advantage. They are fighting for their freedoms, their rights, and their namesake; they fight for the betterment of where they live and what they stand for. The British fight because their king tells them too. I think that will play a big factor in battles to come.
Thinking Like A Historian
Cause and Effect- One of the biggest mistakes made by the British was their inability to finish, so many times they had Washington defeated and they backed off, allowing him to escape. They could have finished him at the Battle of Brooklyn Hieghts, but they sat back and waited, only to realize that he had gotten away. Because the British didnt destroy him when they had the chance, it allowed Washington to rebuild his armies and later defeat them at the Battle at Trent.
Change and Continuity- Many things changed because of the outcome of the American Revolution. For the first time in the history of the world, a country rebelled and replaced its past government with a government that was run and governed by the people and for the people. This changed the way a lot of people looked at government, and helped established Democracy oriented governments. It essentially changed the way people wanted to be governed and were governed. The only thing that remained the same was the US relation with France, and allies like that are worth their weight in gold.
Reading Thoughts Big Idea/Generalization- I think the biggest generalization that can be made about the revolution was the fact that Washingtons army was vastly outnumbered by the British, but his outstanding leadership allowed the Continental Army to stay in the war long enough to get some small victories. Those small victories eventually blossomed into winning big and key battles, and Washington won the war.
Importance- I think that Valley Forge was very important in turning the war effort around, the men were finally becoming trained soldiers, and it allowed them a well needed rest. Here is also the first time that the french show they are going to be good allies with the Rebel cause by sending in General Von Steuben to train Washingtons army. I believe its this training that helped them win key batlles later on in the war.
Thinking like a Historian
Turning Points- As i said in my last statement, I believe that the training by General Von Steuben in the spring of valley forge was key to the Rebel cause. Before the training the Rebels had the motivation and determination to go and fight, but they lacked skill and discipline. Being trained the same way the British were trained gave them new insight in order to defeat them.
Through Their Eyes- General Cornwallis and General Howe obviously had a very different idea about how to win a war, but to understand why it was so different, one has to put themselves in their respective shoes. General Cornwallis wanted nothing more than to defeat the rebels and get out of America, he didnt mind if things were a little sloppy, as long as the job got done. General Howe howevere, had to be pleasing parliament and the king, so he had to make sure everthing was clean and well put together. Casualties were avoided, even if that meant crushing Washingtons army when they had the chance.
Comment- Answering Alexis's Question I believe that giving credit to a victory to a number of not as well known people is a mush harder thing to do, than to give credit to one well known person. I think that Congress did what it did because somebody needed to be given credit for the victory, and it needed to appeal to the rest of the American public.
Jacob Hehir
ReplyDeleteReading Thoughts
1. Question- I wonder why General Washington allowed General Lee to take up the assault on the British at Monmouth Court House. General Lee never thought that the plan would work and he had already refused an offer to lead the attack. I believe that General Washington should never have sent General Lee to lead the attack.
2. Importance- In this section I saw the importance of the generals’ wives visiting Valley Forge. When the women were in camp it lifted the attitudes of the generals. In turn, the generals’ positive attitudes boosted the morale of the men in camp.
Read Like a Historian
1. Turning Points - When General Von Steuben arrived at Valley Forge he played a huge role in turning a group of rebels into an army. He drilled the top officers in each group and then sent them back to teach the rest. These drills not only made the army look more professional but also helped the morale of the troops and the intimidation factor when they would line up against the British.
2.Cause and Effect- when General Lee overruled Colonel Lafayette’s lead in the attack on the British, he pulled all of the troops before they even got into a large battle. This turned out to be advantageous because when the retreating troops met with General Washington they were in a great place to set up a strong defense and destroy the British.
Blog: The Glorious Cause: Part Two
ReplyDeleteRachel Maguire
Reading Thoughts
Big Ideas/Generalizations – One of the main issues of the Continental Army was their ability to attract recruits and keep their veterans. As the war went on, it became apparent that people are much more willing to protect their homes than foreign places. It is a truth that Washington often considered. After the British army invaded a new area, Washington would look for new recruits before beginning campaigns to stop the British advances. Every time, new recruits would come forward when they realized their very own homes would be in danger if the Continentals were not successful. Also, throughout the war, it was obvious that no victories also meant very little new recruit or supplies. It is not a little known fact that people tend not to support something that will probably not be victorious, especially when a defeat could lead to death.
Importance – Through all of the ups and downs of the Continental Army and the change in British command, the leadership of George Washington was always constant. The soldiers’ unquestioned loyalty to their commander in chief was a wonder to incoming commanders like General von Steuben. Ever since the attack on Trenton, George Washington’s men had the enthusiasm known to von Steuben as being “The intangible ingredient of every great army, the love of the troops for the leader they served.” Congress may not have known its importance, but von Steuben recognized it as the one piece of hope he would use to in training the men. This very relationship drove the army through all the horrible winters and bloody campaigns to a much deserved victory.
Reading Like a Historian
Through Their Eyes – Everyone prior to and during the American Revolution thought of Britain as an unconquerable enemy whose force surpassed all others. This worldwide view brought fear to the French and kept them out of a formal alliance for much of the war. Also, the British used their power and influence to gain valuable soldiers like the Hessians. The former British dominance also led the British commanders, especially Howe, to be extremely arrogant. Nobody on earth actually believed the American’s could defeat their enemy until their attack at Trenton. After Trenton, the French realized the surprising ability of the Americans.
Differing Perspectives – Throughout the war, Congress acted as an annoyance to Washington. They acted as if they knew what was best for the army and the conditions they were in when, in reality, they had no idea what war was even like. Washington even received an anonymous letter that he knew to be from his friend, Dr Rush, questioning his ability to command the army. Many of his generals were angry and frustrated at Congress, but Washington knew that even if he did not agree, he could do nothing about it. Personally, I don’t see how Washington could possibly have kept his anger under control. After all, no one could fully comprehend the conditions of the men at Valley Forge without actually seeing it for themselves.
Rachel Maguire
ReplyDeleteOnce again, forgot to comment on Jake’s post.
I also have no idea what Washington was doing sending General Lee to command the attack, especially when he believed so much in LaFayette. I’m not exactly sure if he had actually sent Lee to command or if Lee had just assumed that he could, because LaFayette definitely had not heard anything until Lee was there. Also, it seemed to me that Lee felt that he did not require Washington’s permission to do anything seeing as he didn’t actually follow through with the mission.
When this point came up in the book I was extremely surprised. I had no idea that throughout the war, women would be so important and in such an unusual way.
Von Steuben definitely made a huge difference to not only the organization of battle, but I think it also made the men more confident going into battle. Plus, his way of commanding is quite interesting.
After General Lee pulled the troops out I was angry, so I had never actually realized how helpful the move had ended up being. This was just a completely different way of looking at it.
Alexis Abrego
ReplyDeleteReading Thoughts:
Evaluation: I thought how Lafayette and Von Steuben did in the American Army was very interesting. Neither of them had much decoration or very important experience, and yet both of them were the best and most useful out of all the officers sent by the French. From what I gathered from the book many officers were sent that demanded power, and many interviewed for that same reason. They all had “decoration”, but only the lower Captain Von Steuben and Lafayette came close to Washington.
Question: Why did Congress always believe one man’s story when it came to giving credit to a victory? They always elevated the wrong people and questioned the correct people’s capabilities. This question refers to the Generals Lee and Gates.
Thinking like a Historian:
Turning Points: Besides the turning point as the result of the Battle of Trenton there is the turning point of the training of General Von Steuben. Before his work the soldiers had the tenacity of the British, but they lacked the training and experience of them. Von Steuben leveled that playing field with the training during the spring after Valley Forge.
Change and Continuity: During the winter of 1777-1778 Washington changed how he played the game. Instead of attacking during the winter like the previous year he kept his army in place. However, what remained the same was the slow start of the campaign which caused the turning point in competition as mentioned above. Also another thing that didn’t change during the winter was the severe conditions that made many men ill or caused them to die, but that changed as a result of that Greene was appointed quartermaster which kept the army in relative good supply for the rest of the war.
Comment: I definitely agree with Rachel on the comment about Washington’s kept anger and Congress’ annoying tendencies; though I feel that not all of the supply issues were due to Congress. A lot of the supply issues that occurred were because of poor work that was done in the quartermaster office that was fixed with Greene’s assignment to the post.
Jacob Hehir
ReplyDeleteI agree one hundred percent. Why would an average person want to go protect a land that is far away from his own home when it would mean almost certain death.
When workers enjoy who they are working for they are more likley to perform better. This also works in reverse, such as whenever General Lee would lead his troops into battle. The troops were not enthusiastic because General Lee would retreat before the battle ever started.
I agree that after Battle of Trenton the French started to look at the Americans as a capable army and were more willing to start sending their troops over to aid the Americans.
I thought that Congress was rather annoying as well in knowing what was best for the army and the conditions. One would think that if General Washington asked for something, the Congress would give it to him. No one knew what was needed more than than General Washington and his army.
Michael Lukasik
ReplyDeleteReading Thoughts:
Importance- I feel that one of the most important things in the book, which Jeff Shaara wants to get across to the reader, is how strong of a leader George Washington was. Shaara consistently points out the struggles of the Continental Army, such as the lack of supplies and the lack of trained and professional shooters, not the make them look week, but in fact to make them, and more importantly, General Washington, look stronger. Without his guidance and clear understanding of the war and what his military's limits are, the Continental Army would have clearly fell to the more experienced British Army. I feel Shaara did this to attract the reader and make him or her feel the same way some union soldiers would feel about the war at that time, a hopeless effort.
Evaluation- Reading past comments in this thread and some of my past thoughts on why general Lee reluctantly agreed to lead the assault on Monmouth, I really started to think about what the mindset would have been at that time. After some additional research to the summer of 1778 and the events leading up to it, I concluded that one of the main causes to this attack was the weather. As stated in the book, around the time of the battle, it was hot. I learned that around the date of the battle, temperatures were consistently over 100 degrees. With hot weather, people get agitated. This agitation from the extreme weather could have been one of the things that set Generals Lee and Washington off, and what led them to believe that the attack was a good idea. Also, if you look at the date of the battle (June 28th, 1778)some people may notice that this is almost exactly 6 months after Valley Forge. This also may have made Washington feel like he needed "revenge". With this new insight into the battle, I concluded that the cause for the attack may have been less about the actual war, but more internal reasons and from just being angry.
Michael Lukasik (Continued from Above)
ReplyDeleteThinking Like a Historian:
Using the Past- Using the controvertial attack on Monmouth, I think the current day military can learn one important lesson. This lesson is, just because times are tough, an attack with large numbers will not always help. In the battle of Monmouth, Lee agreed to fight with the promise of more soldiers than he was previously given. With this increase of firepower and because of the agitation he was facing at the time from the heat, he decided to attack. While this battle could be looked at as a success, it did have its share of drawbacks (examples being further heat exhaustion and loss of men). It seems the me, modern day battle tactics are based of numbers, rather than external factors. A large example being the Vietnam war. With soldiers going into very unfamiliar terrain, many men were lost due to the actual jungle. If we would have learned our lesson from the Battle of Monmouth, we would have been more cautious of external factors and therefore, would have lost a lot less men. I feel the modern day military needs to take more factors into account effect, such as weather, the locals feelings towards the army being there and what the costs would be instead of focusing on the main goal like what Generals Lee and Washington mistakenly did in Monmouth.
Turning Points- An obvious turning point was the Battle of Trenton. With the success of the Rebel Army in question but a week before the attack, this victory shot good moral through the army like blood in a vein. The new moral gave the army hope and gave the soldiers confidence in themselves and gave them a reason to fight.
Comment: To answer Alexis's question about congress believing one man's story, I think it was just am issue of how hard it was to get word around at the time. At the time, a lot of information got around by mouth and then got written down as heard. Congress probably recognized the work of all the lesser known commanders, but the general public didn't. If someone was telling you the story of a battle and you were a union soldier, and you heard the names of General Washington and General von Steuben, the average soldier would probably only remember Washington. Then he would write in his Journal on how Washington (with the help of unnamed others) did something important. The soldier would then tell the story to another, only using Washington's name. So in conclusion, I feel it is the public that didn't give credit where credit was earned, not the government.
Logan Zastrow
ReplyDeleteReading Thoughts:
Predictions- Its clear that at the beginning of the book the Rebels are being badly beaten by the British Army, however, once the book progressed and Washington was able to come out with a key win at Trent against the Hessian, I believe that Washington will continue to win battles and eventually crush the British.
Importance- The Rebels have a better reason to fight than the British do, and I think that will play to their advantage. They are fighting for their freedoms, their rights, and their namesake; they fight for the betterment of where they live and what they stand for. The British fight because their king tells them too. I think that will play a big factor in battles to come.
Thinking Like A Historian
Cause and Effect- One of the biggest mistakes made by the British was their inability to finish, so many times they had Washington defeated and they backed off, allowing him to escape. They could have finished him at the Battle of Brooklyn Hieghts, but they sat back and waited, only to realize that he had gotten away. Because the British didnt destroy him when they had the chance, it allowed Washington to rebuild his armies and later defeat them at the Battle at Trent.
Change and Continuity- Many things changed because of the outcome of the American Revolution. For the first time in the history of the world, a country rebelled and replaced its past government with a government that was run and governed by the people and for the people. This changed the way a lot of people looked at government, and helped established Democracy oriented governments. It essentially changed the way people wanted to be governed and were governed. The only thing that remained the same was the US relation with France, and allies like that are worth their weight in gold.
Logan Zastrow
ReplyDeletePlease disregard my comment above, it was meant for the first section, my apologies
Logan Zastrow
ReplyDeleteReading Thoughts
Big Idea/Generalization- I think the biggest generalization that can be made about the revolution was the fact that Washingtons army was vastly outnumbered by the British, but his outstanding leadership allowed the Continental Army to stay in the war long enough to get some small victories. Those small victories eventually blossomed into winning big and key battles, and Washington won the war.
Importance- I think that Valley Forge was very important in turning the war effort around, the men were finally becoming trained soldiers, and it allowed them a well needed rest. Here is also the first time that the french show they are going to be good allies with the Rebel cause by sending in General Von Steuben to train Washingtons army. I believe its this training that helped them win key batlles later on in the war.
Thinking like a Historian
Turning Points- As i said in my last statement, I believe that the training by General Von Steuben in the spring of valley forge was key to the Rebel cause. Before the training the Rebels had the motivation and determination to go and fight, but they lacked skill and discipline. Being trained the same way the British were trained gave them new insight in order to defeat them.
Through Their Eyes- General Cornwallis and General Howe obviously had a very different idea about how to win a war, but to understand why it was so different, one has to put themselves in their respective shoes. General Cornwallis wanted nothing more than to defeat the rebels and get out of America, he didnt mind if things were a little sloppy, as long as the job got done. General Howe howevere, had to be pleasing parliament and the king, so he had to make sure everthing was clean and well put together. Casualties were avoided, even if that meant crushing Washingtons army when they had the chance.
Logan Zastrow
ReplyDeleteComment- Answering Alexis's Question
I believe that giving credit to a victory to a number of not as well known people is a mush harder thing to do, than to give credit to one well known person. I think that Congress did what it did because somebody needed to be given credit for the victory, and it needed to appeal to the rest of the American public.